(playing a bit of devil's advocate to show what these implicit "Canon promises" are about)

so you'd be fine if Canon stopped selling any cameras at all, new or old models?

or maybe you bought your lenses under the implicit promise that Canon would continue to sell bodies with which you can use them, and that those bodies would be close to the best that other makers are offering at any given time?

Gothmoth

(playing a bit of devil's advocate to show what these implicit "Canon promises" are about)

i guess that was a reply to my post?

Quote

so you'd be fine if Canon stopped selling any cameras at all, new or old models?

well i would be suprised at least.. as suprised as when we had no sunrise tomorrow.

Quote

or maybe you bought your lenses under the implicit promise that Canon would continue to sell bodies with which you can use them, and that those bodies would be close to the best that other makers are offering at any given time?

well i take that serious the day canon makes such an announcement or the lenses i have will not work any longer.

as long as amateur photographer have no better things to do then being upset about some RUMORS are not being true.... yawn.

DSLR cameras are so good these days. print A3 and you will hardy see a difference to a 30000$ hasselblad.compacts.. i can understand that people want better IQ in compact cameras.their tiny sensors really suck.

but what do you expect from a new DSLR?more features and gimmicks.. sure! the only features i really miss in current canon DSLR cameras are a build in radio trigger for flash (and speedlite models triggered by radio signals) and GPSpocket wizards are fine but a build-in full ETTL radio trigger is better.

better image quality?mhm... better dynamic range would be good but i donÂ´t expect a huge improvement in IQ.

i do understand that people are eager to see new camera models. but some behave as if they need a new camera to make great pictures.

i also wonder how many, who complain that there is no new 1 series camera yet, will buy a 5000-7000$ camera in the end.

pros talking about their photos 80% of the time.. amateurs talking about gear 80% of the time.so if you want to improve your photographic skills... take photos.

Tarrum

You need to upgrade? So...why are you wasting your time on the forum then? Go to the shop, search crazy to get that 1D IV. Or, switch to Sony, or Nikon. Oh wait, Nikon has nothing as well..

You can't shoot sports with a 5D MK II? A friend of mine shoots with XSi and I got 3 who use 5D II's for hockey, football, ski jumps and many other sports. They shoot for newspapers and other agencies and I never hear them complaining, especially not about 1Ds Mark IV or 1D Mark V. Canon owes you nothing, they're releasing their model when they will and nobody said it's coming on 25th. It's just the rumors that make us all think like that.

I don't care what Canon does, I just want them to get their s*it together. There was an article I saw from JUNE where the HEAD OF CANON said DSLR production is at the same level pre-earthquake, so why there hell are there no 1D's anywhere to be found? I need to upgrade, BADLY. A 5DII is not a sports camera and that's currently what I am stuck shooting with. I'm not spending thousands on rentals that I can't recoup the cost of, since I string for a paper.. so I need some solution, buying a 1D is it, but good luck finding one from a reputable dealer.

Oh my! How does anyone shoot sports without a update to the 1DIV?!

Oh, right they just use the 1DIV.

It's as if everyone's cameras have just stopped taking pictures, or have some sort of fast approaching expiration date that will cause the camera to explode and you must must must upgrade.I love new gear as much as the next guy but I have the ability to tell when I actually need something and when I just have lust for new gear.

Did you even read my post or just SKIM it? You can NOT find a 1DIV ANYWHERE. I don't care if it's a 1DIV or a 1DV just get some cameras in stock somewhere.

And for those who mentioned the 7D, I'm tempted, but... really need the voice annotation on the 1D as well... Shooting football without it and trying to remember who gained how many yards on what down is a pain in the a$$ without it.

it's the eye and the skill behind it that creates the masterpeice not the latest model of something. none of the old masters had a MK V and i doubt that Monet had a red stripe around the handle of his brushes.

I need to upgrade, BADLY. A 5DII is not a sports camera and that's currently what I am stuck shooting with.

This is the kind of comment that brings out the old fart in me.

Within my lifetime (OK, I would have been, like, 6) the Nikon F was considered a "sports camera." The F had a blazing 3 fps firing rate. Oh, but wait! You could squeeze out 4 fps if you could shoot blind with the mirror locked up!

And think of the poor Graflex guys. (Take a single shot. Put the darkslide back in. Turn over the film holder. Pull out the other darkslide. Re-cock the shutter. Replace the flash bulb. Take another single shot three plays later. . . )

If you're shooting for Reuters or Sports Illustrated (a situation of which I, unfortunately, can only dream), yes, you probably owe it your prestigious client to acquire a top-line high-speed camera. But assuming you are shooting for the Beaver County Times or the equivalent, shooting at 3fps, or even, heaven forfend, SINGLE FRAME, would be a very good skill to learn. 10fps does not completely obviate the need for a good sense of timing in sports photography.

You might throw in some manual focusing practice while your at it, because even the best AF systems will screw up several different common sports situations (such as focusing on the big, contrasty number on the defensive tackle's back instead of the running back's face).

drummstikk--you're arguments are valid to a point, but not everyone's needs are the same. I am shooting cyclists going by at 30mph, and the more I can capture individual athletes the more shots I sell. I'm not shooting for a masterpiece or even a cover photo, I'm selling to the individuals, and everyone that I miss is a lost sales opportunity.

An old school way to do this is pick your spot, set your focus and capture them as they go by. Except when they go by in groups, this doesn't work. Old world there was nothing you could do about it. With the latest and greatest I can refocus (or at least a good AF can; I doubt it's humanly possible, certainly not for me!) and recompose the shot multiple times in the span of 10 seconds and capture a whole lot more of what I'm trying to shoot.

drummstikk--you're arguments are valid to a point, but not everyone's needs are the same. I am shooting cyclists going by at 30mph, and the more I can capture individual athletes the more shots I sell.

Sure. And about 5 times a year I shoot a diving competition and less then 8fps leaves me in the dust. I'm definitely not saying there is never a call to take advantage of the latest technology. But if more people would actually learn to drive their Chevettes before they demand that Daddy buy them that new Porsche 911, there might be more actual PHOTOGRAPHERS out there and fewer mere "camera operators."

I guess I shouldn't complain. The more shooters that are out there with substandard skills, the better off I am.

Sometimes the pickin's are too easy. Last May, I saw a guy obviously struggling to take decent groups and portraits ahead of a college commencement with with a 5D II and range of "L" glass he'd probably just put on his VISA card. I was able to figure out who his client was and handed them my business card "in case things didn't work out their photographer." Three weeks later I had a shiny new one-year contract with a University Alumni association.

I guess I shouldn't complain. The more shooters that are out there with substandard skills, the better off I am.

Sometimes the pickin's are too easy. Last May, I saw a guy obviously struggling to take decent groups and portraits ahead of a college commencement with with a 5D II and range of "L" glass he'd probably just put on his VISA card. I was able to figure out who his client was and handed them my business card "in case things didn't work out their photographer." Three weeks later I had a shiny new one-year contract with a University Alumni association.

Nice! I find myself starting to do the same thing at triathlons.

It makes me wonder, though. I mean, I've been at this all of since May with no experience or background. I know how much I don't know (which is A LOT!) And yet after doing one cycling series and one triathlon I've recieved multiple comments--from people I've never met--that "these are the best event photos (or photos of me) that I've ever seen."

So what are all those other "photographers" doing?! And how do we find their clients?

it's the eye and the skill behind it that creates the masterpeice not the latest model of something. none of the old masters had a MK V and i doubt that Monet had a red stripe around the handle of his brushes.

That's funny, but the specs absolutely do matter. Colleges of fine art may make students take a freehand drawing course (or equivalent) before taking a photography class but the two artforms are fundamentally different. Compositional skills are the same, but one is transferring images from your eye to the viewfinder, the other is looking for scenes that are already out there (even staged photos are limited by the "real world" and in this the tech specs matter).

Actually, I would go as far to say that there is one thing they have in common - the tools really do matter. Somebody working with modern paint applications and a wacom tablet can make fine gradients or perfectly smooth lines effortlessly. Classic painting basically forces the painter to do everything - which can always be great in its results but you are limited in output as a result, especially when you go big. Somebody can make perfect cel-shaded spheres all day long, and we shouldn't knock that ability translating into not just quicker but possibly more accurately rendered representations of their internal vision. We're not at the point where you can just transfer images by thought but not having to deal with the characteristics of physical brushes, pens, pencils, crayons and charcoal rubs and the rest can be very liberating. That it is so often used by people with little skill is no matter...they're still probably making better art than they would have otherwise. (Though I think that the pen tablets still aren't close to the pencil and paper experience, or even the experience of a real brush whose bristles you can see).

Today, I think that all the possibilities have made the artist's experience much more open than in the past. Nobody has taken paints away - we've just added a whole lot more possibilities. To me, that's what progress is all about.

drummstikk--you're arguments are valid to a point, but not everyone's needs are the same. I am shooting cyclists going by at 30mph, and the more I can capture individual athletes the more shots I sell. I'm not shooting for a masterpiece or even a cover photo, I'm selling to the individuals, and everyone that I miss is a lost sales opportunity.

An old school way to do this is pick your spot, set your focus and capture them as they go by. Except when they go by in groups, this doesn't work. Old world there was nothing you could do about it. With the latest and greatest I can refocus (or at least a good AF can; I doubt it's humanly possible, certainly not for me!) and recompose the shot multiple times in the span of 10 seconds and capture a whole lot more of what I'm trying to shoot.

But you're shooting with a 40d and not crying for a 1D IV. I shoot cycling, too...with a 5d Mark II and a 20d at 5fps. If someone can't find a 1d Mark IV and for some reason the 5d Mark II is so inferior, buy a 7d as someone else had mentioned. There are LOADS of full-time photographers that don't use the 1-series. National Geographic for years sent their photographers on assignment with EOS 5d's (they may still; I don't know anyone there anymore). I've seen 7d's and 5d's carried by photographers on the field at NFL games. It is a lot of fun to see a new camera body get announced with new technology, but let's all try to get a grip and realize that our pictures are not going to magically get better with this new technology. No doubt the jump from film to our modern digital cameras has improved the quality of pro photographs, but now that we're (almost) all using digital, the returns are minimal on new bodies. Is the 1d III so outdated that people can't use it for pro work? REALLY? C'mon. I plan on keeping my bodies until it's more cost effective to replace than repair. A person who makes their living off of photography shouldn't be buying a new pro body every time it's released; that's just bad financial planning for a business. There is no way they'd be increasing their business so much by the "upgrade" to recoup that loss.

...but let's all try to get a grip and realize that our pictures are not going to magically get better with this new technology...

I agree. Between stellar glass and stellar RAW processing on the desktop a decent body should be able to get a lot of mileage. Only substantial gains in low light/noise performance interest me much (as long as I remain rationale and don't fall into GAS).